Retrospective operation of procedural criminal amendments extended defence evidence rights to a pending prosecution.

An amended criminal procedure provision allowing an accused to give evidence on oath in defence applied to a pending prosecution because procedural amendments ordinarily operate retrospectively unless expressly excluded. The amending Act's saving clause preserved only the specific exceptions stated in it, and the exclusion for certain warrant-case provisions did not extend to the defence evidence provision. As no provision in the amended law withheld that benefit from pending proceedings before a Magistrate where evidence had already begun, the accused remained entitled to invoke it. The refusal by the lower courts was therefore erroneous, and the order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended procedural provision enabling an accused person to give evidence on oath in his defence applied to a pending criminal proceeding in which evidence had already begun to be recorded.

Analysis: The amended law was procedural in character, and procedural amendments ordinarily operate retrospectively unless expressly excluded. Section 116 of the amending Act preserved only the specific provisions mentioned in its exceptions for pending matters and, on a plain reading of the concluding words, made the remaining amendments applicable to proceedings already pending in criminal courts. The special exclusion in clause (c) related to the specified procedural provisions governing warrant cases and did not exclude Section 342A. As no provision in the amending Act or the amended Code withheld Section 342A from pending criminal proceedings before a Magistrate where evidence had commenced, the accused remained entitled to invoke that provision.

Conclusion: The amended provision applied to the pending prosecution, and the accused was entitled to appear as a witness in his defence; the refusal by the courts below was erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order refusing the application to testify in defence was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Amendments to procedural criminal law apply to pending proceedings unless the statute expressly excludes them, and a general saving clause does not displace an otherwise applicable new defence procedure.

---